On 2019-07-09, Ian Zimmerman <i...@very.loosely.org> wrote:
> On 2019-07-05 14:25, Grant Edwards wrote:
>
>> -----------------------------grub.cfg------------------------------
>> timeout=10
>> root=hd0,1
>>
>> menuentry 'vmlinuz-4.19.52-gentoo' {
>> linux /boot/vmlinuz-4.19.52-gentoo root=/dev/sda1
>> }
>>
>> menuentry 'vmlinuz-4.14.83-gentoo' {
>> linux /boot/vmlinuz-4.14.83-gentoo root=/dev/sda1
>> }
>> -------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> I shudder when I contrast that with many hundreds of lines of cruft
>> that the mkconfig system would generate.
>
> This is an overstatement
To be fair, I should state that I've never used the autoconfig stuff
on that particular system. When I converted from grub-legacy to
grub2, I just translated the old grub config file to the new syntax.
> matica!2 ~$ wc -l /boot/grub/grub.cfg
> 148 /boot/grub/grub.cfg
That's still a 15:1 ratio. It appears that Gentoo is a better than
some other distros. On a fairly simple Ubuntu server system with 3
kernel versions:
wc -l /boot/grub/grub.cfg
265 /boot/grub/grub.cfg
On other distros/machines I've often seen double or triple that using
the installation defaults. You _really_ don't want to see the auto
generated grub.cfg files on a machine with a dozen different linux
installations, each with several kernels. Unless you disable the OS
probing module, it gets bad.
> 2 kernels, no initrd, just like yourself.
>
> Maybe you do need to take a look at /etc/default/grub ?
If you spend some time tuning things in /etc/default/grub, it gets
better. But, for my Gentoo systems I still find it far less work to
just create a grub.cfg file manually.
The semantics of /etc/default/grub also seem to vary to an annoying
extent between distros and versions. The semantics of grub.cfg seem
to be far more stable.
--
Grant Edwards grant.b.edwards Yow! Were these parsnips
at CORRECTLY MARINATED in
gmail.com TACO SAUCE?
